canon rumors FORUM

Has anyone done any extensive comparison about choosing between these two settings other than the fact that one produces much larger files. The manual says it is easier to edit in post.

All-I may have a bit more latitude in terms of post, but I thought the IPB responded to changes just fine and I honestly couldn't tell the difference between the two. I've heard if there is going to be a lot of motion involved that ALL-I is better, but for relatively static subjects I think IPB is just fine (and much smaller!)

I think the basic deal is that you get more latitude in post, but only if you are editing frame by frame. If you are applying edits to the whole take, then IPB is just as good for editing. Furthermore, IPB has more detail in each frame because it isn't reliant on each frame providing all the information for the entire frame. Many people have reported block artifacts with ALL-I, because it requires significant compression in each frame.

I think the basic deal is that you get more latitude in post, but only if you are editing frame by frame. If you are applying edits to the whole take, then IPB is just as good for editing. Furthermore, IPB has more detail in each frame because it isn't reliant on each frame providing all the information for the entire frame. Many people have reported block artifacts with ALL-I, because it requires significant compression in each frame.

I think the basic deal is that you get more latitude in post, but only if you are editing frame by frame. If you are applying edits to the whole take, then IPB is just as good for editing. Furthermore, IPB has more detail in each frame because it isn't reliant on each frame providing all the information for the entire frame. Many people have reported block artifacts with ALL-I, because it requires significant compression in each frame.

If you think about it, the 5d mkiii can handle 6 fps @ 25MB per shot, so its capable of doing over short bursts(at least in terms of processing). But they can definitely do better than the bit-rate they currently offer.

If you think about it, the 5d mkiii can handle 6 fps @ 25MB per shot, so its capable of doing over short bursts(at least in terms of processing). But they can definitely do better than the bit-rate they currently offer.

the pathways for stills record raw data. video needs to be processed and tons of data discarted. this bitrate is likely baked in the circuits and can't be really upped or they would have started higher. if you want higher rates you need a clean uncompressed HDMI out. hopefly magic lantern will find a way since that is the only real solution to bitrate issues.

the pathways for stills record raw data. video needs to be processed and tons of data discarded. this bit rate is likely baked in the circuits and can't be really upped or they would have started higher. if you want higher rates you need a clean uncompressed HDMI out. hopefully magic lantern will find a way since that is the only real solution to bit rate issues.

I don't know. Just think about what the 1D-C can pump out, with Raw 4k. the DIGI 5 processor is a big leap over 4.

the pathways for stills record raw data. video needs to be processed and tons of data discarded. this bit rate is likely baked in the circuits and can't be really upped or they would have started higher. if you want higher rates you need a clean uncompressed HDMI out. hopefully magic lantern will find a way since that is the only real solution to bit rate issues.

I don't know. Just think about what the 1D-C can pump out, with Raw 4k. the DIGI 5 processor is a big leap over 4.